defending psychotherapy from ideological overreach: how to push back

the therapist’s guide to not being re-educated

This post follows on from my earlier post ‘linguistic and psychological devices that critical social justice informed psychotherapy (CSIP) advocates use’. It would be helpful to read this first if you haven’t already.

Here is the table that accompanies my earlier post.

Table

46.9KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

In recent years, critical social justice (CSJ) ideology has made significant inroads into psychotherapy and counselling. From its early days in the 1980’s, the social/counselling contexts module of training courses aimed to broaden practitioners’ awareness of the social, cultural, and structural influences on mental health. Its purpose was exploratory, not prescriptive, offering a lens through which practitioners could reflect on social context while maintaining the integrity of their chosen therapeutic methodology.

However, over time, critical social justice informed therapy (CSJIP) has ‘grown like Topsy’, morphing into something more rigid and expansive; this ideological framework, that increasingly resembles a practice modality in its own right, has quietly colonised our profession. Rather than encouraging thoughtful reflection, it now seeks to prescribe how therapists should think, speak, and intervene, down to the minutiae of language, demeanour, and assumed client power dynamics and causes of distress. What began as an invitation to reflect on cultural influences has evolved into a highly controlling system of compulsory best practice and surveillance, exerting growing authority over all aspects of training curricula, clinical supervision and ethical codes, while encroaching on the intimacy of the therapeutic relationship.

While most of us were sleeping, a seismic shift has taken place, away from benign awareness-raising and the freedom of professional idiosyncrasy, towards a mandatory ideological template; a framework that increasingly dictates not only what may be said, questioned, or explored, but also how therapists must practice.

As outlined in this table of common rhetorical strategies, CSJIP often uses a blend of linguistic manipulation and psychological tactics that stifle dissent and narrow the field’s intellectual horizons. This article offers a few suggestions to push back constructively, ethically, and from within the traditional foundations of psychotherapy. Please share your experience of CSJIP advocates’ impositions and how you pushed back in the comments or message me.

1. responding to the tone and framing devices

When disagreement is met with condescending civility, e.g., “thank you for that brave (but problematic) point”; the real message is often one of polite dismissal. This rhetorical move appears courteous but subtly undermines the speaker by pre-framing their contribution as misguided, outdated, or morally suspect.

To push back, name the mechanism and invite genuine engagement:

“I notice that calling my view ‘problematic’ risks closing down exploration before we’ve started. Can we focus on what I actually said?” or

“framing disagreement as brave or risky can imply it’s already out of bounds. I’d like us to stay with the content and engage it on its own terms.”

This affirms dialogic parity (Rogers, 1957), a value in humanistic therapy. He emphasised the importance of an equal and genuine therapeutic relationship, where each voice is met with respect rather than hierarchy. In this spirit, ideas are explored collaboratively, not framed as suspect before they’re even heard. Dialogic parity means we come to the conversation in good faith, trusting that insight emerges through mutual engagement, not pre-emptive judgements.

2. countering psychological pathologising

When disagreement is framed as fragility, defensiveness or unprocessed trauma, it reduces a thought to a symptom.

Suggested response:

“I’d like to distinguish between resistance and critical thinking. Can we stay with my idea, not my psychology?”

“not every disagreement is a defence. It can be about healthy differentiation/learning/growth.”

This honours the existential tradition’s focus on autonomy (Spinelli, 2007). It recognises the individual's right to interpret, question and make meaning from their own experience without being reduced to diagnostic labels or ideological assumptions. Respecting autonomy means allowing space for uncertainty, dissent, and self-defined truth.

3. refusing guilt by association

If your view is discredited by being associated with controversial figures you might reply:

“ideas should be tested on their own merit, not dismissed because others have shared them.”

“let’s avoid guilt by association. What matters here is what’s being argued, not who else may have said it.”

This upholds the Socratic principle of independent inquiry. Rather than accepting ideas based on authority or affiliation, the Socratic approach encourages critical thinking through reasoned dialogue. It invites us to test arguments on their merit, not silence them through guilt by association.

4. resisting linguistic overkill

When disagreement is exaggerated as violence or trauma, this distorts dialogue; suggested responses:

“disagreement can be uncomfortable, but calling it harmful risks shutting down necessary discussion.”

“let’s distinguish between psychological harm and emotional discomfort. Both matter, but they’re not the same.”

This respects trauma-informed nuance; not all distress is trauma, and not all discomfort requires a trauma lens (van der Kolk, 2014).

5. challenging epistemic policing

When a view is dismissed for not citing ‘the right theorists’:

“academic rigour involves evaluating ideas based on their clarity and usefulness, not just on whose work I reference”.

“there’s room for many ways of knowing in our field. Intellectual diversity strengthens, not weakens, our work.’

This reflects epistemic pluralism, (Cooper & McLeod, 2011) that recognises there are multiple legitimate ways of knowing, each shaped by different experiences, traditions, and theoretical frameworks. In psychotherapy, this means valuing diverse perspectives rather than enforcing a single ideological lens.

6. interrupting moral intimidation

When disagreement is said to cause harm to others:

“respectful disagreement isn’t harm, it’s the foundation of critical thinking and professional learning.”

“can we separate challenge from attack? Conflating the two creates anxiety and blocks progress.”

This aligns with Rogers’ (1961) view that growth requires emotional honesty, not moral fear. When practitioners feel unable to speak freely for fear of moral judgement, the relational conditions that foster genuine growth - congruence, empathy, and unconditional positive regard are compromised.

7. naming moral absolutism

When issues are reduced to good vs. bad:

“therapy is a space for exploring uncertainty, not a place to declare ideological sides.”

“ambivalence and complexity are part of life. Let’s make room for them in our thinking, too.”

Jung (1954) reminds us that shadow work requires engaging contradiction. Avoiding uncomfortable ideas in favour of moral certainty risks projecting our own disowned conflicts onto others, rather than integrating them.

8. resisting identity based silencing

When identity is used to disqualify a speaker:

“while identity is important, it doesn’t define the full scope of what we can contribute or understand.”

“each of us brings a lens but insight isn’t confined to group experience.”

This reflects Buber’s (1970) view of dialogue between persons, not categories. His philosophy holds that true dialogue arises when we meet each other as whole beings, not as representatives of social identities. When identity is used to silence rather than connect, the ‘I–Thou’ relationship collapses into an ‘I–It’ encounter, stripping dialogue of its humanity.

9. re-opening dialogue foreclosure

When topics are labelled ‘not up for discussion’:

“avoiding difficult topics builds tension and confusion. Discussing them carefully brings clarity.”

“dialogue is how we metabolise complexity, not by silencing what’s difficult, but by thinking together.”

This affirms the Gestalt principle of staying with the tension (Perls et al., 1951). Growth often emerges not through premature resolution, but by remaining present to discomfort, ambiguity, and the energy held in unfinished conversations.

10. calling out shame rituals

If a public confession or an apology is expected for dissent:

“therapy should model reflection, not coercion. No one should be pressured into performance.”

“authenticity can’t happen under duress. Let’s respect each person’s process.”

Winnicott (1965) emphasised the importance of spontaneity, authenticity, and the ‘true self’, all of which require an environment that does not coerce or demand compliance, but instead allows emergent, self-directed expression. In therapy and in groups, this supports the principle that authentic growth cannot occur under external pressure or performance demands.

11. rebalancing the inner and outer worlds

When suffering is attributed only to social structures:

“let’s look at both outer context and inner meaning—therapy works best at their interface.”

“we can acknowledge injustice and still attend to the personal roots of pain.”

Both classic psychoanalysis (Freud, 1917) and integrative therapy hold this tension. Freud’s concept of the unconscious assumes that social realities are always mediated through internal processes like repression, fantasy, and defence. Even in the face of real injustice, the psyche responds in ways that are deeply personal and uniquely interpretable. Therapy honours this complexity by attending to both the world we live in and the one we carry within.

conclusion

In recent years, critical social justice (CSJ) ideology has made significant inroads into psychotherapy, not just as a topic of inquiry, but as a framework that increasingly dictates what may be believed, said, questioned, or explored. As outlined in the table of common rhetorical strategies, CSJIP advocates often use a blend of linguistic manipulation and psychological tactics that stifle dissent and narrow the field’s intellectual horizons. This article offers a guide to pushing back respectfully, constructively and ethically from within the traditional foundations of psychotherapy.

Pushing back against CSJIP coercion doesn’t require replicating its certainty or stridency. We don’t need to be dismissive or inflammatory. We need to honour the elders of our profession whose shoulders we stand on, and to renew our confidence in the fundamentals of our approach - relationship, dialogue, curiosity, complexity, and compassion.

It is with some sadness that I am beginning to think we must recognise the limits of our respect and efforts. However carefully and responsibly our concerns are raised, ironically, CSJIP advocates often show little willingness to engage with our particular and genuine differences. This resistance to dialogue only underlines the need for CSJIP to identify itself as a distinct specialism or ideological framework, rather than continuing to reshape the entire field in its image.

Pushing back may not result in our being heard. But it does preserve something essential; our integrity, our identity, our self-esteem, and our ability to stand apart, rather than silently assimilate. In holding our ground, we honour the therapeutic tradition of respectful differentiation.

In standing up for these values, we are not standing against justice, but for a psychotherapy that remains human first, ideological second.

references

Buber M, 1970, I and Thou, Translated by W. Kaufmann, New York, Scribner. (Original work published 1923)

Cooper M. and McLeod J, 2011, Pluralistic Counselling and Psychotherapy, London, SAGE

Freud S, 1917, Mourning and Melancholia, In J. Strachey, ed, The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 14, London, Hogarth Press, pp.237–258

Jung C.G, 1954, The Development of Personality, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press

Perls F, Hefferline R.F, and Goodman P, 1951, Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality, New York, Julian Press

Rogers, C.R., 1957, The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), pp.95–103

Rogers C.R., 1961, On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy, Boston, Houghton Mifflin

Spinelli, E., 2007, Practising Existential Psychotherapy: The Relational World, London, SAGE

van der Kolk, B.A., 2014, The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind and Body in the Healing of Trauma, New York, Viking

Winnicott, D.W., 1965, The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment, London, Hogarth Press